Bank Charges Reclaiming Guide discussion

[Deleted User]

Game_Over wrote: »

I would suggest ignoring a complaint for 8 weeksis a case where the bank have not been sympathetic.

But there is no such eligibility requirement I see on the FOS website anyway.

Where FOS can adjudicate is if the Bank have not been "sympathetic" to a customer in genuine hardship.

Anyone complaining to FOS that they have not had a response after eight weeks is not likely to get a refund of charges on that basis as the Bank will (doubtless) claim that the complaint was not received.

FOS will only encourage the bank to reply as quickly as possible or request that the customer re-submit their complaint.
A FOS referral can take as long as eighteen months, far longer than the eight weeks the Bank are allowed.
Unless the customer can prove the Bank have "ignored" their complaint, there is little point in referring to FOS at such an early stage.

It is certainly no indication or proof that the Bank have failed to be sympathetic.

Game_Over wrote: »

I think some people just make stuff up on this site, sometimes.

Nothing I said was inaccurate.

Game_Over

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

.Anyone complaining to FOS that they have not had a response after eight weeks is not likely to get a refund of charges on that basis as the Bank will (doubtless) claim that the complaint was not received.

And you evidence for that is?

As I said previously: "I think some people just make stuff up on this site, sometimes."

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It is certainly no indication or proof that the Bank have failed to be sympathetic

So failing to respond within 2 months to a complaint from a customer who is in financial hardship is being sympathetic???

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, sorry

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Nothing I said was inaccurate.

Yes it was; it was wholly inaccurate!

That is presumably why you have since changed your post.
The original, and wholly inaccurate, wording is as I quoted in my earlier post.
I'm glad that you have now seen the error of your ways, but it is sad that you seem to wish to remain in denial about it.

[Deleted User]

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Even the earlier unedited post (which I clearly acknowledge in the text of that post) is not false information. By "accept" in the original post, I meant that FOS would be inclined to give the Bank a chance to respond rather than accept a non-reply after eight weeks as a valid complaint. They certainly wouldn't uphold the complaint in those circumstances.

It would be different if the complainant had had an acknowledgement of the complaint, but this was not the case either and so it's more likely that the Bank simply haven't received the letter rather than it simply failing to respond, sympathetically or otherwise.

Since a FOS referral takes in excess of eighteen months, I'd say it was wise for the OP not to refer to the Ombudsman until the Bank have at least acknowledged the complaint. Giving the Bank another opportunity by re-submitting the complaint is the least likely to cause unnecessary delay to an eventual decision.

Please do not accuse me of "making stuff up" again unless you can show categorically that the information I have posted is false or mis-leading.

Time to put the shovel down, dear.

Anyone who makes a complaint to a financial institution covered by the ombudsman scheme has a right to ask the ombudsman to assist if, after 8 weeks from the initial complaint, a satifactory solution has not been achieved.

It doesn't take 18 months for the ombudsman to respond - usually well within 4 weeks.

Yes it could take 18 monmths for a full investigation, but that rarely occures, especially over bank charges being reclaimed under financial hardship criteria.

All explained in the MSE article :

Don't give up. Call up or write another letter to show you're not going to give up easily. This could persuade it to settle.

If your first letter doesn't work, before going further you may want to give the bank a call, or write another letter saying you're going to the Ombudsman and you think your case is strong, but would prefer to sort it out quickly. See how that works and carry on if it doesn't.

If you haven't been able to negotiate a satisfactory settlement with your bank at this point, then it's time to take it to the Ombudsman.

Here you need to rely on the ‘fairness argument', focusing on the problems charges have caused you, as the Ombudsman has said it is unlikely to consider "templated arguments".

As it's free and there are no negatives apart from a few months' wait, it's worth doing even if it rejects your complaint. It's not guaranteed to get you a payout, but the chances of one are greatly increased if you're in financial hardship.

The worst that can happen is you lose the cost of a few stamps.

...

The Ombudsman's job is to settle disputes and see if your bank has looked at your situation properly. If it accepts your complaint, it first goes to the bank and asks it about the situation. If the bank doesn't agree to pay you, the Ombudsman may carry out a formal investigation. It's far more common that a settlement is reached without a formal investigation and adjudication, though.

You can't simply go direct to the Ombudsman, you must always complain directly to the bank first. Then you need to wait eight weeks from the date you sent your initial letter to the bank – however, if you've received a rejection or final response from it, you can go sooner. Don't expect an instant decision though – it can take weeks or months.

It's a deliberately simple process...

[Deleted User]

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All I said was that the Ombudsman wouldn't make a "full investigation" if the OP complained that he hadn't received a reply after eight weeks.

No you didn't. You originally posted:

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The Ombudsman won't accept complaints about bank charges unless the Bank have not been "sympathetic".

Edit: It appears Moneyineptitude has posts removed from this thread.
The one I partially quoted above, and another one made at 12.19pm today.

Game_Over

Yes, I saw those posts too.

One about how Scrimpers allegedly accepts the original complaint was lost, despite the fact a proof of delivery is available and that Scrimpers accepts just having "to be patient and wait until the 8 weeks are up." :huh:

... and then Moneyineptitude went on standing by the advice given in post#1302

Quite ironic, in the circumstances. :cool:

Game_Over wrote: »

I think some people just make stuff up on this site, sometimes.

Thank you for confirming my earlier suspicions were not without foundation.

[Deleted User]

I can add and remove my posts as I see fit.
Moderators are fully aware this is to avoid any more argument.
This and my earlier post #1307 is my final word on the subject.

societys_child

darkfield wrote: »

All explained in the MSE article :

Not sure why you posted that article, pretty sure it was written before the banks won the court case and any mention now, of "unfair charges" tends to bring a swift rejection.

If Scrimpers has current financial hardship, they would be far better picking up the phone and talking to them, not writing letters and waiting . . .

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

Not sure why you posted that article, pretty sure it was written before the banks won the court case and any mention now, of "unfair charges" tends to bring a swift rejection...

Perhaps because that article is supposed to be the subject matter of this thread?

Article states it was last updated 28-Apr-2014.

As I understand it, Scrimpers is claiming based on personal financial hardship; nothing to do with the unfairness or otherwise of the charges imposed.

Game_Over

OMG, another post vanished! :eek:

Only to be replaced by this one about 10 minutes later which has the final sentence added. :cool:

It's a lot easier just to use the edit function as you've done before ... but then people can see what you did of course.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I can add and remove my posts as I see fit.
Moderators are fully aware this is to avoid any more argument.
This and my earlier post #1307 is my final word on the subject.

[Deleted User]

Starline wrote: »

As I understand it, Scrimpers is claiming based on personal financial hardship; nothing to do with the unfairness or otherwise of the charges imposed.

As Scrimpers already acknowledged that he hasn't yet waited the full eight weeks for a reply, any further discussion about this is rather redundant.

I would tend to agree, though, that the poster concerned (if he ever returns to the thread) should be trying a more direct and immediate means of contacting the Bank if he is in current financial hardship.